On guns, Federal Law trumps State Law?

[brutal]

Here's another - I've been eyeballing Idaho as a retirement destination, I wish I could make it work before.

BREAKING: Idaho governor signs emergency legislation nullifying all future federal gun laws

http://truthinmedia.com/breaking-idaho-governor-signs-emergency-legislation-nullifying-all-future-federal-gun-laws/

Sadly, it doesn't seem to have much teeth as it only prevents state officials from enforcing Fed laws. Doesn't appear to keep the Feds out of the business of jack booted thuggery.

[GilpinGuy]

Here's another - I've been eyeballing Idaho as a retirement destination, I wish I could make it work before.

BREAKING: Idaho governor signs emergency legislation nullifying all future federal gun laws

http://truthinmedia.com/breaking-ida...eral-gun-laws/

Sadly, it doesn't seem to have much teeth as it only prevents state officials from enforcing Fed laws. Doesn't appear to keep the Feds out of the business of jack booted thuggery.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the Fed Assholes rely on local police to actually carry out any enforcement? IOW for example, the Feds want to confiscate XXX from John Doe. Maybe there would be a few Fed Asshole head honchos overseeing things but the overwhelming force would be local LEOs.

If the local Sheriff said "Fuck that, we aren't going to be involved", that would pretty much end it. Unless the Fed Assholes fly in there own thugs, of course.

Am I way off here?

[BPTactical]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the Fed Assholes rely on local police to actually carry out any enforcement? IOW for example, the Feds want to confiscate XXX from John Doe. Maybe there would be a few Fed Asshole head honchos overseeing things but the overwhelming force would be local LEOs.

If the local Sheriff said "Fuck that, we aren't going to be involved", that would pretty much end it. Unless the Fed Assholes fly in there own thugs, of course.

Am I way off here?

Yes.
Waco, Ruby Ridge for case study.

[Great-Kazoo]

Yes.
Waco, Ruby Ridge for case study.

The other way to work around local lE's is using the "WE suspect and Have solid evidence, they were using federal land to commit XXX"

[Skip]

Until an appellate court or (better yet) the SCOTUS rules on this issue we don't really know. The ATF states that it is illegal but that is their opinion, it is not a statement of law.

[snip]

We do know.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/922

(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances

While inclusion/exclusion of "controlled substances" is subjective according to their schedule, this restriction is codified in law. For MJ users, the best possible outcome would be national legalization/delisting.

I don't think the US Code that covers this is gray at all. As a matter of fact, to me it's pretty black and white.

^ Yup

Not saying I agree with the restriction/law either. One of the many things us extremists non-compromising ammosexuals compromised on long ago.

I think one of the reasons Dems support local legalization but won't support national legalization is to create prohibited persons and have the discretion to ruin lives.

[68Charger]

I believe the 4473 is pretty clear with respect to controlled substances, but what's not so clear is the jurisdiction- but unless that's challenged and heard by the court, it will stand well enough for the handcuffs. If we're talking about a store that has an FFL, then that License gives them jurisdiction- but if it's a private party sale? Just because the state of Colorado requires a BGC for a private sale, does that give the Feds Jurisdiction?

Maybe this is what the Boulder DA was meaning that he was going to start pressing charges for?

ETA: thought it might be useful to cite the "memo" mentioned in the article:

https://www.atf.gov/file/60211/download

And the federal 922(g) law states the conditions when someone would be prohibited

to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

obviously relies upon the commerce clause- hence why I say jurisdiction is questionable

[Martinjmpr]

The key word is "unlawful user." A person with an MMJ card (or any person in a state that has legalized MJ for recreational use like CO) can legitimately argue that they are not unlawful users, and that's not a frivolous argument, either. It's a very powerful one that gets to the heart of an issue that our country has struggled with since its founding, the question of where does the authority of the Federal government stop.

After all, if the state has explicitly said they can use MJ, then how can their use be unlawful? States have a general police power to decide what is lawful and unlawful within their own boundaries. The Federal authority only exists where the Constitution has given the national government that authority.

Whether the form is a federal form or a state form is irrelevant - the only relevant question is whether a state law that allows someone to use MJ makes them a "lawful" user vs. an "unlawful" user.

Right now, law enforcement benefits from the ambiguity and that's probably why they DON'T want a court to rule on this. I'll bet the feds would bend over backwards to avoid getting this question to a court because they're afraid a court might rule against them and say that someone who lives in an MJ legal state or someone with a MMJ card IS a "lawful user" which would deprive them of a way to try and limit gun sales.

Incidentally, don't think I'm an MJ user or supporter. I voted against amendment 64 and I still think that all the rosy predictions about how great legal MJ is going to be for Colorado were overstated, and that there's going to be some significant negative effects like increases in petty crime, increases in welfare costs, child abuse and neglect, etc.

But in terms of legalizing MJ being a way to roll back Federal overreach, and for the state to say "screw you" to the feds, I have to admit I kind of like it. There are pot shops all up and down Broadway, and every time another one opens, the options for the feds to swoop in and close them down becomes more and more problematic for them.

In short, all of the states that have legalized MMJ (and I think it's over half of them now) are, in essence, in open (if rather mild) rebellion against the Federal government. It's a "peaceful" rebellion, but it's still a rebuke to the Federal government's authority.

[Skip]

[snip]

In short, all of the states that have legalized MMJ (and I think it's over half of them now) are, in essence, in open (if rather mild) rebellion against the Federal government. It's a "peaceful" rebellion, but it's still a rebuke to the Federal government's authority.

A rebellion that stops short of gun rights, which is the topic at hand. When was the last time you saw a state sue the Feds for denying a citizen of that state RKBA because he used MJ (MMJ or no)?

Any use of MJ/MMJ is expressly illegal at the Fed level. With the current scheduling, there is no provision for MMJ. There is no gray area here and anyone who says there is doesn't understand the law but it can change (schedule).

http://www.dea.gov/druginfo/ds.shtml

Schedule I

Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Schedule I drugs are the most dangerous drugs of all the drug schedules with potentially severe psychological or physical dependence. Some examples of Schedule I drugs are:

heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), marijuana (cannabis), 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy), methaqualone, and peyote

This scheduling makes it illegal use no matter what the state law says.

This is also the problem with giving away the 10th Amendment. The decision just isn't up to a state which can "rebel" for only as long as FedGov tolerates it. If Obama pulled highway or education funding from Colorado (our tax dollars anyway), weed wouldn't be legal here for long.

[68Charger]

brings up a question- I saw no mention of arrests in the article... just confiscation of firearms.
So what law gives them that authority to confiscate, but not to arrest?

(or was the article just missing detail?)

[Martinjmpr]

A rebellion that stops short of gun rights, which is the topic at hand. When was the last time you saw a state sue the Feds for denying a citizen of that state RKBA because he used MJ (MMJ or no)?

The state wouldn't sue (no standing) but an individual could. And as more states legalize MJ, sooner or later someone will and the courts will have to decide that.

There is no gray area here and anyone who says there is doesn't understand the law but it can change (schedule).

http://www.dea.gov/druginfo/ds.shtml



This scheduling makes it illegal use no matter what the state law says.

Unless you can cite an appellate court decision that supports that, what you just stated is an opinion, not a legal fact.

Of course the DEA, the ATF and the DOJ are going to say it's illegal. They have to, because they're the Federal government.

But they are not a legislature that writes laws, and they are not a court that interprets laws and says what the laws mean. They are executive branches, all of them. So until the issue of whether a state can legalize something that is federally illegal gets in front of a court with the proper jurisdiction, it actually is a gray area of the law.